All you really need to read is this excerpt:
This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty
Umnnhh...in HIS humble opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wisconsin native. "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC "Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton "The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
About Me
- Dad29
- SUPER-STRAIGHT. Old. Nasty. Likes Chesterton, Gregorian Chant and other real music. Calvin & Hobbes is Great!. Varmint-shooter, and have trained ALL my children in the art.
Fr. Harry
Followers
Gadsden
Don't Tread on Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(2262)
-
▼
June
(158)
- Flaws in Catechesis?
- The Duty of Patriotism
- High Speed Rail? Not Here, Not Now
- McCann, "Sr. Predator", and the Archdiocese
- GOP "Fuel Solution:" Half A Loaf
- Wisconsin Refuses Federal Money
- Madison Sewer District: Forethought?
- Sarcasm? Not Really
- Some Ideas for Tom Barrett
- Hines and McGee
- Con-Law "Prof" Turley--Ignoramus?
- "Healthy Wisconsin"'s Cost Increases
- Conservative? Don't Bother Selling to Epic Systems
- Eat Less or Grow Your Own
- Abp. Burke Out of St Louis, to Rome
- Lefty Reaction to Heller: Kill Scalia
- The Cynic's View of Heller
- Obama The Lying Sack (on Guns)
- Chicago in Gunsights After Heller
- Canadian Healthcare Plan "In Crisis"
- DC Mayor: Dense? or Stupid?
- Live Worse, Rabble!
- A Mother Asks...
- Stem-Cells Work
- Chant Aeternum
- Communion in the Hand? Should Go Away
- Flim-Flammery at the 2 Vatican Council
- Are the Evangelicals "Cracking Up"?
- Wild Pigs, "Disaster Relief" and The Feds
- Heller Interesting Grafs
- The Ego of Obama
- HELLER AFFIRMED
- Another Price Increase
- Twenty Years Ago, James Hansen May Have Been Right
- SCOTUS Places Itself in Jeopardy
- Border Violence Getting Serious
- Is Obama Nuts?
- Obama: "I Was For It Before I Was Against It"
- Forget About Christmas Presents: You're Paying MATC
- Van Hollen v. Warren
- Van Hollen's Lab Is Cooking
- Kennedy Imposes His Morality
- Newspaper Outsourcing
- The Smart Guys
- The Second Amendment's Value--Part Two
- Gummint: Incompetent and Stupid, Too
- The Common Sense of LawDog
- Why People Don't Like Lawyers
- Moderate Pubbie Bites the Dust
- "Im Here from the Government to Help You"
- The Cost of Non-Family Families
- More Taxes!! Just What Wisconsin Needs
- The Reformers
- Personality-Adjusted Prayers
- For Phelony
- What Was Churchill Thinking?
- Actual History (!!) on the Eucharist
- Obama's New Political Director: Type-Casting
- Don't Like the Law? Write Your Own Bill!!
- Milwaukee Mass Attendance 25%?
- A Story Which You Will Remember
- Liturgical Translations
- Patron Priest of Pellet-Gun Poppers?
- Gay "Marriage:" Decision, Referendum, Litigation
- About that Second Confiteor
- Dumb Moves: Obama
- Victor Davis Hanson: Somewhat Accurate History
- Government Work v. Van Hollen
- McCain: Still Shamnesty All These Years
- An Era Passes in Church Music
- Weigel on The Latin Mass
- The Argument FOR Clothing-Optional
- Utilitarianism: Mill and the Reductionists
- New NSA Seal Design
- Dodd's $75K "Gift"
- The Bradley Foundation's New Director
- Informed Comment on Obama's Election Spin
- Within One Block of Loyola/Chicago
- Test Case for Wisconsin Law?
- A Poll You Didn't Read About
- Nobody's Senator: "Not in MY Back Yard!"
- The Second Amendment's Value
- "Right Down to Right Down"...It's Abortion
- Some Wildlife Is More Equal...
- The Gregorian Rite's Obstacles
- B-16 Bombs English Bishops
- The "DUH" Study for USCC--"Don't Blame Homosexuals"
- Cheap Mortgages to Sen. Dodd
- Language-Challenged Bishops
- W'r 2 Stooopid 2 No
- Lead Us Not Into Temptation
- Propaganda Points from GITMO Trials
- 4.75" Here
- Fun With Open Carry in Milwaukee
- Boumediene--and Andy Jackson
- Gitmo Habeas: The Citizenship Question
- SCOTUS' Left Back in Play
- GWB's Current Fatuous Move
- Up for Some Fun?
- Land Price Down 30%
-
▼
June
(158)
Links
- American Economic Alert
- Boots and Sabers
- Catholic Caveman
- Catholic World News Opinion
- Chesterton & Friends
- Christus Vincit
- FreeRepublicLatestPosts
- Grim's Hall
- John Lott's Website
- Lakeshore Laments
- LawDog Files
- ManWithBlackHat
- Moonbattery
- New Liturgical Movement
- No Runny Eggs
- Other McCain
- Overlawyered
- Planet Moron
- Shark&Shepherd
- Sykes
- Terrence Berres
- The Curt Jester
- The Marquette Warrior
- The Onion: REAL News
- Vox Day
- What the Prayer REALLY Says
- Wigderson
10 comments:
What else do you expect from the Lawgiver-In-Black who insists that it is SCOTUS' role to write the laws?
How can someone who is pro-life take issue with a ruling that refused to expand the death penalty?
You can't say you are pro-life when you want to give a jury the choice to take a life. In supporting the death penalty, you are making a judgment that it is acceptable to take a life under certain circumstances. And it is a short slide down the slippery slope to allow the death choice in other circumstances, i.e. abortion.
Super Id, I would suggest that you fire up your super-brain and contemplate the difference between "innocent" (like the unborn) and "guilty" (like duly tried and convicted criminals.)
Maybe that will help you to understand.
Maybe not--but that's the difference.
FACT:
In a decent society there should be certain laws, like premeditated murder, that are deemed so heinous that you can expect to be killed if you can't obey them.
FACT:
In a society that doesn't respect life, killing innocent victims (fetuses or murder victims) is less important than the lives of the killers. And yet many still confuse this with compassion.
Well Dad,
The distinction between guilt and innocence is still a choice that it is acceptable for life to be taken in certain circumstances. Thus, you have an "I'm pro-life except for when A, B, and C happen" type of position.
I'd say that is a weak position to stand on when you are arguing against abortion.
Anon 6:24, I think you need to brush up on the difference between fact and opinion.
Dad29: in HIS humble opinion ..
And in the opinion of the 48 states that do not impose this penalty. Significantly less humble, I'd say.
Thus, you have an "I'm pro-life except for when A, B, and C happen" type of position
Not only is that an assumption on your part, it is also inaccurate.
For a self-proclaimed lawyer, you leap to conclusions rather quickly.
Ah--but Jay--aside from the inane judgment rendered, it is the intent of the Founders that the several States will have their own penal laws.
Mind you, I have not (nor will I) endorsed the Louisiana law. I disagree with the decision.
The court is wrong on several counts. They should never have taken the case. It is about the state's right. A duly elected governor and legislature decided that the government should excute child rapists under certain circumstances. Many states have decided that the death penalty is appropriate and the states should be able to decide what crimes should the death penalty should apply. We could say the same about gay marriage. Since 48 other states say no to gay marriage, then CA and MA should not be allowed to have gay marriage. We can also make the case for concealed carry.
They also should have let this stand because of the heinous of the crime. A 300 pound thug raped a 8 year old child, causing physical and mental problems foir the rest of this girl's life. He should be excuted for this. But don't worry Jay, now that he is off of death row, I suspect prison justice will be served and he will face the ultimate price, he will be excuted in prison, by the inmates, just like Jeffery Dahmer. Good riddance to this thug. Now that I think about it, maybe the prison justice system maybe better for this pervert.
Dad 29,
I drew my conclusion that you supported taking a life in certain circumstances from this comment:
"Super Id, I would suggest that you fire up your super-brain and contemplate the difference between "innocent" (like the unborn) and "guilty" (like duly tried and convicted criminals.)"
But, if you are against the death penalty in all circumstances then I do apologize for my hasty conclusion. If not, my point stands.
Dan,
The case involved a constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment, which the Supreme Court properly has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court previously held capital punishment for rape was cruel and unusual. In the instant case, they refused to make an exception for child rape.
I do agree this is a henious crime. But, would you reach the same conclusion that execution is deserved for the catholic preists that sexually asualted alter boys? "good riddance to those thugs?"
Cheers
Post a Comment